Anything someone wrote about the so-called Novus Ordo that caused such a stir, is out of date by now. They haven't been using the post-Vatican II Roman Rite Mass for a few weeks. There's a new one, a more accurate translation than the precedent. Maybe you heard the news.

Or, maybe not.

its not just the translations that are the topic of discussion here...many of the rubrics were relaxed after V2, which led to liturgical abuses.

If all of this is true maria, why did many RC's leave the Church specifically because of Novus Ordo?

PP

Because in order to keep performing the Latin Mass, which preceded the revised Mass, a parish had to have permission from the bishop, and many did not bother to get this. People who only wanted the LM in the first place, or were otherwise traditionalist, wound up either having to travel out of their way to reach an LM church, or not having one close enough at all. So they left for the FSSP, SSPX or other splinter groups.

The Roman (and Eastern) Catholic Church together still has hundreds of millions of members, so it's not like the whole thing isn't there anymore. Not everybody gave up, no matter how much some may wish otherwise.

Anything someone wrote about the so-called Novus Ordo that caused such a stir, is out of date by now. They haven't been using the post-Vatican II Roman Rite Mass for a few weeks. There's a new one, a more accurate translation than the precedent. Maybe you heard the news.

Or, maybe not.

its not just the translations that are the topic of discussion here...many of the rubrics were relaxed after V2, which led to liturgical abuses.

Were the rubrics you refer to "relaxed" because they were decreed to be so as a part of VII or were they "relaxed" because various priests and bishops thought (quite possibly very mistakenly?) that VII, or the so-called "Spirit of VII" gave them some kind of license to do so? This is, I think, an important distinction.

Anything someone wrote about the so-called Novus Ordo that caused such a stir, is out of date by now. They haven't been using the post-Vatican II Roman Rite Mass for a few weeks. There's a new one, a more accurate translation than the precedent. Maybe you heard the news.

Or, maybe not.

its not just the translations that are the topic of discussion here...many of the rubrics were relaxed after V2, which led to liturgical abuses.

Were the rubrics you refer to "relaxed" because they were decreed to be so as a part of VII or were they "relaxed" because various priests and bishops thought (quite possibly very mistakenly?) that VII, or the so-called "Spirit of VII" gave them some kind of license to do so? This is, I think, an important distinction.

Anything someone wrote about the so-called Novus Ordo that caused such a stir, is out of date by now. They haven't been using the post-Vatican II Roman Rite Mass for a few weeks. There's a new one, a more accurate translation than the precedent. Maybe you heard the news.

Or, maybe not.

its not just the translations that are the topic of discussion here...many of the rubrics were relaxed after V2, which led to liturgical abuses.

Were the rubrics you refer to "relaxed" because they were decreed to be so as a part of VII or were they "relaxed" because various priests and bishops thought (quite possibly very mistakenly?) that VII, or the so-called "Spirit of VII" gave them some kind of license to do so? This is, I think, an important distinction.

i'd say a little of column A, and a little of column B...

Care to be a little more specific, perhaps with some examples? No offense, but your answer is so vague that it really doesn't help.

Anything someone wrote about the so-called Novus Ordo that caused such a stir, is out of date by now. They haven't been using the post-Vatican II Roman Rite Mass for a few weeks. There's a new one, a more accurate translation than the precedent. Maybe you heard the news.

Or, maybe not.

its not just the translations that are the topic of discussion here...many of the rubrics were relaxed after V2, which led to liturgical abuses.

Were the rubrics you refer to "relaxed" because they were decreed to be so as a part of VII or were they "relaxed" because various priests and bishops thought (quite possibly very mistakenly?) that VII, or the so-called "Spirit of VII" gave them some kind of license to do so? This is, I think, an important distinction.

True. This is a key issue and has been noted again and again by RCC writers. You may go to one parish and get the new hymns, the musicians, the whole bit. Go to another, and they are very straightforward and traditional. Differential enforcement is the problem. The most recent translation seems to have been well-received. Because it translates the old Mass better than the so-called 'Novus Ordo' did, it is in effect closer to the old Mass than the N.O. was.

As for women and children doing the readings, I've seen that in my Orthodox parish. Nothing to see. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

But if the RCC and ECC are in reality chugging along rather well, then what will people find to complain about?

Anything someone wrote about the so-called Novus Ordo that caused such a stir, is out of date by now. They haven't been using the post-Vatican II Roman Rite Mass for a few weeks. There's a new one, a more accurate translation than the precedent. Maybe you heard the news.

Or, maybe not.

its not just the translations that are the topic of discussion here...many of the rubrics were relaxed after V2, which led to liturgical abuses.

Were the rubrics you refer to "relaxed" because they were decreed to be so as a part of VII or were they "relaxed" because various priests and bishops thought (quite possibly very mistakenly?) that VII, or the so-called "Spirit of VII" gave them some kind of license to do so? This is, I think, an important distinction.

True. This is a key issue and has been noted again and again by RCC writers. You may go to one parish and get the new hymns, the musicians, the whole bit. Go to another, and they are very straightforward and traditional. Differential enforcement is the problem. The most recent translation seems to have been well-received. Because it translates the old Mass better than the so-called 'Novus Ordo' did, it is in effect closer to the old Mass than the N.O. was.

As for women and children doing the readings, I've seen that in my Orthodox parish. Nothing to see. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

But if the RCC and ECC are in reality chugging along rather well, then what will people find to complain about?

It was very, very common in both the Orthodox parishes I was a member of for women to do the epistle readings. Never saw children doing it, though.

You're worried that people will find nothing to complain about? Really?? C'mon.... (I know, you *were* kidding. Weren't you ?)

No, Mary, I'll take your word for it: RC bishops are not under the authority of the Pope. After all, there are no sanctions for disobeying a papal instruction, right?

No, Father. The Orthodox are ready and willing to call the pope a monarch and a CEO and the Church a Religious Organization.

EVERY socio-political organization has specific local rules that direct each and ever level of the hierarchy. Please go and look at the papal laws for the bishops, that must be obeyed or they must face prosecution, and let me know the penalties attached to each...minimum and maximum penalties because that is how the rule of law works.

If I am such an ass about the operations of my own Church please put Orthodoxy's money where it's mouth is and show me the legalistic and juridical rule of law in its particulars.

Show me its Constitution, and the Episcopal Charters that are directly laid down by the Imperial Papacy.

Anything someone wrote about the so-called Novus Ordo that caused such a stir, is out of date by now. They haven't been using the post-Vatican II Roman Rite Mass for a few weeks. There's a new one, a more accurate translation than the precedent. Maybe you heard the news.

Or, maybe not.

its not just the translations that are the topic of discussion here...many of the rubrics were relaxed after V2, which led to liturgical abuses.

Were the rubrics you refer to "relaxed" because they were decreed to be so as a part of VII or were they "relaxed" because various priests and bishops thought (quite possibly very mistakenly?) that VII, or the so-called "Spirit of VII" gave them some kind of license to do so? This is, I think, an important distinction.

True. This is a key issue and has been noted again and again by RCC writers. You may go to one parish and get the new hymns, the musicians, the whole bit. Go to another, and they are very straightforward and traditional. Differential enforcement is the problem. The most recent translation seems to have been well-received. Because it translates the old Mass better than the so-called 'Novus Ordo' did, it is in effect closer to the old Mass than the N.O. was.

As for women and children doing the readings, I've seen that in my Orthodox parish. Nothing to see. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

But if the RCC and ECC are in reality chugging along rather well, then what will people find to complain about?

Just to clarify, the "Novus Ordo" refers to the Latin mass as revised under Pope Paul VI and his successors. The new English translation is the "Novus Ordo" in English, as was the previous translation. The new translation is much more accurate than the old one. The new one also employs more "elevated" language.

Canon 331: The office uniquely committed by the Lord to Peter, the first of the Apostles, and to be transmitted to his successors, abides in the Bishop of the Church of Rome. He is the head of the College of Bishops, the Vicar of Christ, and the Pastor of the universal Church here on earth. Consequently, by virtue of his office, he has supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church, and he can always freely exercise this power.

Canon 16 §1: Laws are authentically interpreted by the legislator (i.e. the Pope) and by the one to whom the legislator has granted the power to interpret them authentically.

Canon 333 §3: There is neither appeal nor recourse against a decision or decree of the Roman Pontiff.

No, Mary, I'll take your word for it: RC bishops are not under the authority of the Pope. After all, there are no sanctions for disobeying a papal instruction, right?

No, Father. The Orthodox are ready and willing to call the pope a monarch and a CEO and the Church a Religious Organization.

EVERY socio-political organization has specific local rules that direct each and ever level of the hierarchy. Please go and look at the papal laws for the bishops, that must be obeyed or they must face prosecution, and let me know the penalties attached to each...minimum and maximum penalties because that is how the rule of law works.

If I am such an ass about the operations of my own Church please put Orthodoxy's money where it's mouth is and show me the legalistic and juridical rule of law in its particulars.

Show me its Constitution, and the Episcopal Charters that are directly laid down by the Imperial Papacy.

Canon 331: The office uniquely committed by the Lord to Peter, the first of the Apostles, and to be transmitted to his successors, abides in the Bishop of the Church of Rome. He is the head of the College of Bishops, the Vicar of Christ, and the Pastor of the universal Church here on earth. Consequently, by virtue of his office, he has supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church, and he can always freely exercise this power.

Canon 16 §1: Laws are authentically interpreted by the legislator (i.e. the Pope) and by the one to whom the legislator has granted the power to interpret them authentically.

Canon 333 §3: There is neither appeal nor recourse against a decision or decree of the Roman Pontiff.

Stanley, I don't have an issue with these canons per se, so long as they only are applied to the territory of the Church of Rome. I would be very uncomfortable being under such canons in the Orthodox Church as a whole.

Canon 331: The office uniquely committed by the Lord to Peter, the first of the Apostles, and to be transmitted to his successors, abides in the Bishop of the Church of Rome. He is the head of the College of Bishops, the Vicar of Christ, and the Pastor of the universal Church here on earth. Consequently, by virtue of his office, he has supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church, and he can always freely exercise this power.

Canon 16 §1: Laws are authentically interpreted by the legislator (i.e. the Pope) and by the one to whom the legislator has granted the power to interpret them authentically.

Canon 333 §3: There is neither appeal nor recourse against a decision or decree of the Roman Pontiff.

Stanley, I don't have an issue with these canons per se, so long as they only are applied to the territory of the Church of Rome. I would be very uncomfortable being under such canons in the Orthodox Church as a whole.

Canon 331: The office uniquely committed by the Lord to Peter, the first of the Apostles, and to be transmitted to his successors, abides in the Bishop of the Church of Rome. He is the head of the College of Bishops, the Vicar of Christ, and the Pastor of the universal Church here on earth. Consequently, by virtue of his office, he has supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church, and he can always freely exercise this power.

Canon 16 §1: Laws are authentically interpreted by the legislator (i.e. the Pope) and by the one to whom the legislator has granted the power to interpret them authentically.

Canon 333 §3: There is neither appeal nor recourse against a decision or decree of the Roman Pontiff.

Canon 331: The office uniquely committed by the Lord to Peter, the first of the Apostles, and to be transmitted to his successors, abides in the Bishop of the Church of Rome. He is the head of the College of Bishops, the Vicar of Christ, and the Pastor of the universal Church here on earth. Consequently, by virtue of his office, he has supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church, and he can always freely exercise this power.

Canon 16 §1: Laws are authentically interpreted by the legislator (i.e. the Pope) and by the one to whom the legislator has granted the power to interpret them authentically.

Canon 333 §3: There is neither appeal nor recourse against a decision or decree of the Roman Pontiff.

It is all very clear, Mary. Very clear.

You and I both have sufficient experience of the world to know that ANY laws written this broadly NEVER EVER are specific enough to do anything but provide very broad guidelines that are wide open to interpretation.

Also you mistake the "legislator" with the Pope. You falsely include it here where it is not in fact included in the canon that you quote. That is a serious error.

The POPE is NOT a legislator. Legislators are those who draft the canons and who are trained to interpret the canons. They are canon lawyers.

If you cannot grasp even that much, how can you begin to make the wild claims that you make?

The POPE is NOT a legislator. Legislators are those who draft the canons and who are trained to interpret the canons. They are canon lawyers.

If you cannot grasp even that much, how can you begin to make the wild claims that you make?

11) Because canon law, like all other legal systems, is open to interpretation, the Church offers various norms for interpreting canon law as well as for resolving disputes over interpretation that may arise between canonists. One such norm is canon 16 §1 which states: "§1 Laws are authentically interpreted by the legislator and by that person to whom the legislator entrusts the power of authentic interpretation." This simply means that laws are to be interpreted according to the mind of the person who made (legislated) the law, as well as his successor and those who either he or his successor have delegated in an official capacity to interpret the law. In the case of the Code of Canon Law, the legislator is Pope John Paul II

The POPE is NOT a legislator. Legislators are those who draft the canons and who are trained to interpret the canons. They are canon lawyers.

Surprise, surprise. I dropped "canon 16 legislator" into google and got a good half dozen commentaries on the canon by RC canon lawyers. Every one of them says that the Pope is the Supreme Legislator. So can you point us to any authentic RC document that backs up your statement that the Pope is not a legislator (i.e., a person who enacts laws)? Or is this simply another case of sic Maria dixit?

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great

Or how do you explain the article by the canon lawyer, Pete Vere: "In the case of canonical legislation affecting the universal Church, canon 331 reminds us the Roman Pontiff is both the supreme legislator of canon law as well as the supreme interpreter of canon law."Canon Law, Vatican II, And Eucharistic DevotionPeter Vere, JCL

Or how do you explain the letter of Monsignor Camille PerlPontifical Commission Ecclesia DeiN. 343/98Rome, 27 October 1998"The Pope is the supreme legislator in the Church."

You and I both have sufficient experience of the world to know that ANY laws written this broadly NEVER EVER are specific enough to do anything but provide very broad guidelines that are wide open to interpretation.

In RC authentic interpretations have the same force as the law:

"An authentic interpretation which is presented by way of a law has the same force as the law itself, and must be promulgated. If it simply declares the words which are certain in themselves, it has retroactive force. If it restricts or extends a law or explains a doubtful one, it is not retroactive" (CIC canon 16 § 2)

Sheesh, where's your sense of adventure? Don't you like to explore new pathways, get lost in the woods, sucked into black holes, and explode your mind ? You want us to stay on topic?? What fun is that?

Anyway, in answer to your question--Yes. For what it's worth, that is. But then, I already said that somewhere in this thread a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away .

As for whether the Pope is supreme legislator or not, I have 2 questions: 1) Does it really matter, and why or why not? and 2) Can that title be interpreted correctly as more of an honorific than something substantive? Compare the title of the President of the U.S. as Commander-in-Chief. Now, he has supreme authority over the armed forces but in reality, you never see him on the battlefield commanding troops, devising tactics, orchestrating battles, etc. Heck, he doesn't even wear a uniform! (I don't know if that's a good analogy but it's the best I can come up with at the moment .)

Mary, it was not a wild claim. It may be a claim you do not agree with, but I did look around and found it cited on several reputable RC websites. You may not agree with such an interpretation, but to say that it is 'wild' when it is, in fact, rather common and 'domesticated,' is simply a ludicrous example of hyperbole.

You would do well to tone down your passions on this. As I have said, I am not calling the Pope the anti-Christ or attributing to him pernicious intentions or sin. The RCC runs on a different set of assumptions, and it is important to understand these differences.

In the canonical tradition of the Church, different churches have different ways of approaching episcopal authority (Ap. Cn. 34). For example, the Church of Alexandria had a special prerogative over the appointment of local bishops that differs from the election of bishops in other churches (1st EC 6). If the RCC wants to run its internal affairs within its own province in the manner described, that's fine. It only becomes a problem when the Pope wants to have universal authority. We reject that. No need for name-calling or insults. It is a difference. There will be no fruitful discussion of reunion until that matter is settled.

Canon 331: The office uniquely committed by the Lord to Peter, the first of the Apostles, and to be transmitted to his successors, abides in the Bishop of the Church of Rome. He is the head of the College of Bishops, the Vicar of Christ, and the Pastor of the universal Church here on earth. Consequently, by virtue of his office, he has supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church, and he can always freely exercise this power.

Canon 16 §1: Laws are authentically interpreted by the legislator (i.e. the Pope) and by the one to whom the legislator has granted the power to interpret them authentically.

Canon 333 §3: There is neither appeal nor recourse against a decision or decree of the Roman Pontiff.

It is all very clear, Mary. Very clear.

You and I both have sufficient experience of the world to know that ANY laws written this broadly NEVER EVER are specific enough to do anything but provide very broad guidelines that are wide open to interpretation.

Also you mistake the "legislator" with the Pope. You falsely include it here where it is not in fact included in the canon that you quote. That is a serious error.

The POPE is NOT a legislator. Legislators are those who draft the canons and who are trained to interpret the canons. They are canon lawyers.

If you cannot grasp even that much, how can you begin to make the wild claims that you make?

I do think that the interpretation of the role of the Pope of Rome is important, given the claims of the RCC in regards to the office.

I do think that you can make a comparison between the Pope and the President of the US in regards to the Armed Forces, but you must remember that the president does dictate what happens in the field, both directly and indirectly. In the case of bin Laden, we actually watched the president watching his orders being carried out by the SEALs. The president also reviews battle plans (watch any documentary on the Vietnam War to see presidents in action when it comes to battlefield planning), and appoints all the commanding officers. It is a powerful position, and a presidential order trumps all others.

As for whether the Pope is supreme legislator or not, I have 2 questions: 1) Does it really matter, and why or why not? and 2) Can that title be interpreted correctly as more of an honorific than something substantive? Compare the title of the President of the U.S. as Commander-in-Chief. Now, he has supreme authority over the armed forces but in reality, you never see him on the battlefield commanding troops, devising tactics, orchestrating battles, etc. Heck, he doesn't even wear a uniform! (I don't know if that's a good analogy but it's the best I can come up with at the moment .)

I do think that the interpretation of the role of the Pope of Rome is important, given the claims of the RCC in regards to the office.

I do think that you can make a comparison between the Pope and the President of the US in regards to the Armed Forces, but you must remember that the president does dictate what happens in the field, both directly and indirectly. In the case of bin Laden, we actually watched the president watching his orders being carried out by the SEALs. The president also reviews battle plans (watch any documentary on the Vietnam War to see presidents in action when it comes to battlefield planning), and appoints all the commanding officers. It is a powerful position, and a presidential order trumps all others.

As for whether the Pope is supreme legislator or not, I have 2 questions: 1) Does it really matter, and why or why not? and 2) Can that title be interpreted correctly as more of an honorific than something substantive? Compare the title of the President of the U.S. as Commander-in-Chief. Now, he has supreme authority over the armed forces but in reality, you never see him on the battlefield commanding troops, devising tactics, orchestrating battles, etc. Heck, he doesn't even wear a uniform! (I don't know if that's a good analogy but it's the best I can come up with at the moment .)

Okay, I can accept that, as far as it goes. The president, however, doesn't (as far as I know) review *every* battle plan, nor does he devise them. He certainly may have input about them and final authority as to whether or not they are carried out and when, but his role is much more, shall we say, supervisory than actual hands-on. And, while he may have a trump card, I think he uses it pretty sparingly. Much the same could be said of the Pope, I would imagine. Am I wrong about that?

The president has the right and can when he desires review all and any aspects of military operations. The president usually reviews the most important operations, including the setting of combat strategy and 'rules of engagement.'

On a practical level, yes, the pope and the president probably are too busy to get involved with local affairs. However, major strategies effect local practices. There is no getting away from supreme power.

I do think that the interpretation of the role of the Pope of Rome is important, given the claims of the RCC in regards to the office.

I do think that you can make a comparison between the Pope and the President of the US in regards to the Armed Forces, but you must remember that the president does dictate what happens in the field, both directly and indirectly. In the case of bin Laden, we actually watched the president watching his orders being carried out by the SEALs. The president also reviews battle plans (watch any documentary on the Vietnam War to see presidents in action when it comes to battlefield planning), and appoints all the commanding officers. It is a powerful position, and a presidential order trumps all others.

As for whether the Pope is supreme legislator or not, I have 2 questions: 1) Does it really matter, and why or why not? and 2) Can that title be interpreted correctly as more of an honorific than something substantive? Compare the title of the President of the U.S. as Commander-in-Chief. Now, he has supreme authority over the armed forces but in reality, you never see him on the battlefield commanding troops, devising tactics, orchestrating battles, etc. Heck, he doesn't even wear a uniform! (I don't know if that's a good analogy but it's the best I can come up with at the moment .)

Okay, I can accept that, as far as it goes. The president, however, doesn't (as far as I know) review *every* battle plan, nor does he devise them. He certainly may have input about them and final authority as to whether or not they are carried out and when, but his role is much more, shall we say, supervisory than actual hands-on. And, while he may have a trump card, I think he uses it pretty sparingly. Much the same could be said of the Pope, I would imagine. Am I wrong about that?

The president has the right and can when he desires review all and any aspects of military operations. The president usually reviews the most important operations, including the setting of combat strategy and 'rules of engagement.'

On a practical level, yes, the pope and the president probably are too busy to get involved with local affairs. However, major strategies effect local practices. There is no getting away from supreme power.

I do think that the interpretation of the role of the Pope of Rome is important, given the claims of the RCC in regards to the office.

I do think that you can make a comparison between the Pope and the President of the US in regards to the Armed Forces, but you must remember that the president does dictate what happens in the field, both directly and indirectly. In the case of bin Laden, we actually watched the president watching his orders being carried out by the SEALs. The president also reviews battle plans (watch any documentary on the Vietnam War to see presidents in action when it comes to battlefield planning), and appoints all the commanding officers. It is a powerful position, and a presidential order trumps all others.

As for whether the Pope is supreme legislator or not, I have 2 questions: 1) Does it really matter, and why or why not? and 2) Can that title be interpreted correctly as more of an honorific than something substantive? Compare the title of the President of the U.S. as Commander-in-Chief. Now, he has supreme authority over the armed forces but in reality, you never see him on the battlefield commanding troops, devising tactics, orchestrating battles, etc. Heck, he doesn't even wear a uniform! (I don't know if that's a good analogy but it's the best I can come up with at the moment .)

Okay, I can accept that, as far as it goes. The president, however, doesn't (as far as I know) review *every* battle plan, nor does he devise them. He certainly may have input about them and final authority as to whether or not they are carried out and when, but his role is much more, shall we say, supervisory than actual hands-on. And, while he may have a trump card, I think he uses it pretty sparingly. Much the same could be said of the Pope, I would imagine. Am I wrong about that?

You're right--no getting away from supreme power . And I think we're both saying pretty much the same thing here.